Clippers get Brandon Rush who is a better version of Willie Green.He is a great spot up shooter and a very good defender.Would start him and have Redick as our 6th man.Also we need a back up PF and Booker is a gritty energy player.He would make a great back up for Blake imo.

Wizards are loaded with PF's and SF's.They have Martell Webster and Otto Porter Jr as their SF's.They have Nene,Al Harrington(if he signs),Jan Vesely,and Kevin Seraphin at PF.And they have Chris Singlton who is a tweener.What the Wizards need is bench scoring and that is what Crawford would give them.

The Jazz get the SF they need and also get Ariza's expiring contract.They would have a lot of big expiring contracts and could use them in either trades or wait and try to land a big name free agent.They also get a 2nd rounder for their troubles.

Flushyriver

08/12/2013 - 09:44 PM PST

Clipper Starter

Posts: 287

votes: 1

I'm pretty sure this would actually work financially (if the Clippers used their TPE separately to get Trevor Booker), but if we're trading away Crawford I don't think we look for a injury-prone SG getting paid 4mill in the final year of his contract. I don't think I like Brandon Rush as much as you do. When healthy, yeah he might be a slightly better Willie Green based on how well he shot in 2011, but I still don't think we'd start him over Redick. It's still a good plausible trade though.

Thanks for the suggestion. If Booker is really super expendable by the Wizards, maybe just the TPE and a second round pick xD

Now that'd be a great trade.

Andrew818

08/13/2013 - 02:18 PM PST

Clipper Starter

Posts: 812

votes: 12

I checked it in the trade machine and it does work financially.The reason I think we should trade Crawford is because him and Redick are at their best when they are the 6th man on a team in my opinion.Redick is a solid defender but I am not sold on him playing big minutes guarding 2's like Joe Johnson,Demar DeRozan,Paul George,DWade,Kobe,etc.Redick isn't as athletic as these guys and doesn't really have the length to bother them on defense.Rush on the other hand is a good defender with a big wingspan.I would still want Redick to play more minutes than Rush but I would start and end games with Rush because of his defense and clutch shooting.

If Rush does go down with an injury we still have Bullock and Green to take up those minutes.I think Bullock is our 2 guard of the future,but since he is still young I wouldn't rush his development.I think Rush would be a great fit for this team and make our perimeter defense a lot better.As great as Crawford is on offense,he is a liability on defense.Reddick can't ISO like Crawford but he can put up a lot of points and assist off the bench.Also with Doc and Gentry running the offense I don't think we need to really on Crawford like we did last year with VDN.

Markojaric

08/13/2013 - 02:49 PM PST

Clipper Starter

Posts: 282

Location: Buenos Aires

votes: 2

The trade is nice and well thought. But there are some things that im not 100% sure (The real market value of JCrossover, if Ariza is the SF the jazz actually want...I have the feeling they could get a better pick for Rush and Evans...and the Wizards probably make out like bandits here)

Flushyriver

08/13/2013 - 02:58 PM PST

Clipper Starter

Posts: 287

votes: 1

Love the whole "don't rush Bullock, trade for Rush thing." Whether it was meant to be a pun or not, nice.

I know it works financially, I just said that because I thought it had the appearance of not being financially plausible. I like the suggestion as it's a better fix than any the Clippers have actually manufactured, but It does however add on more salary than I think we'd be willing to at this point and I don't think taking on Rush's contract for a year would be worth it. Think we could get more for Crawford if we really were to move him.

I do like Booker though for a young big with a nose for rebounds. Wouldn't want to lose more than Green though (I guess we'd still be adding on salary, but that seems more long term and worth it).

And I always thought Redick was a capable two way guard and think his perimeter defense is above average. IMO he didn't get the start in the past more because teams usually had more talented 2 guards on the roster (i.e. Vince Carter, J-Rich, and Monta Ellis) and now is his real chance to start and it couldn't be a more perfect environment for the transition. He could breakout if we gave him a chance.

pageC4

08/13/2013 - 07:53 PM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 4809

votes: 24

JCross has some decent value. contenders will love this guy. when we get to the point of what to do with JCross (say when his contract is up and if we decide not to keep him)I say sign and trade with OKC. That team has a lot of young talent. And by that time Reggie Bullock may be ready to take the 2nd unit SG duties. we could use the picks to just shore up the PF and C postions with young talent.

Voyeur

08/13/2013 - 10:41 PM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 5129

votes: 29

There's no evidence Redick is better off the bench. If anything, he was much more effective in the playoff series against Doc's Celtics when he started (and Orlando actually won) than when he came off the bench (and lost) to the same team a year or so later. And I think his ability to stay in front of his man can be equally as effective as a long athletic dude who can MAYBE block an occasional jumper or get a hand in his face. If anything, we didn't have enough perimeter defenders who were able to move the way Redick can.

Voyeur

08/13/2013 - 10:52 PM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 5129

votes: 29

By the way, here's a new article about our wings...including nifty pics of our new players in their new uniforms!

I'm with you that Reddick should be our starter at the 2, but I think its essentially going to be just a formality to have the "starter" title. I kind of see the minute distribution between Crawford and Redick going similar to what happened between our small forward distribution last year: Butler 24.1 MPG, and 25.7 MPG for Barnes. Even though Butler was the "starter" Barnes' hot year was enough to get him a lot of minutes.

As long as Redick and Crawford each play their heart out I can live with either one starting. I don't know about you guys but I'm really excited to see this team play. Last year I was more excited about our bench than I was the starters. This year will be exciting.

Clipswhit

08/14/2013 - 01:22 AM PST

Clipper All-Star

Posts: 1773

votes: 8

^last year, our bench was arguably better than our starters.

pageC4

08/14/2013 - 01:59 AM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 4809

votes: 24

well, our bench players could have given our starters some trouble for sure. This year will be similar. We may have lost some defense when Bledsoe departed but with Mullens and Collison added I'm very curious to see the 2nd unit play.

Silasie

08/14/2013 - 07:51 AM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 2815

votes: 4

Nice article. It makes it more than clear that we are good to go at the 2 and 3 spots and if we are playing small ball Barnes and Dudley can handle the 4. Of course we are nicely sorted for the PG but it's the front court that is the worry.

Agent0

08/14/2013 - 04:51 PM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 6773

votes: 59

No, it really wasn't. Paul and Blake were just far away the best players on the team, but the wings on the bench were certainly better, and you could argue Odom over DJ.

The bench with Paul and Bledsoe together I believe formed a unit that was the best defensive unit in the league, but they were below average on offense overall. Of course they only had to be better on offense than whatever they were holding opposing offenses to defensively, so it was fine. Cause they shut down the opponent benches to league low levels on offense and so even though they only produced at a below average level on offense, if the opponent is worse then you are out scoring them.

Still, the offense was 116.5 pts/100 (basically insane, league best level) with Paul on the court (which was a lot with the starters, but still like 8 MPG with Odom, like 10 with Crawford and another 8ish with Barnes) , and a weak 104.3 pts/100 with him on the bench, the equivalent of the Cavs offense. That's a 12.2 pts/100 difference.

pageC4

08/14/2013 - 05:58 PM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 4809

votes: 24

A good defensive player will change that.

Renegade_Clipper

09/10/2013 - 12:42 PM PST

Clipper Rookie

Posts: 66

votes: 2

i just read something about Chicago and Deng stalling in contract negotiations. Dudley and Crawford for Deng? a possibility?

tense2

09/10/2013 - 01:00 PM PST

CTB MVP X3

Posts: 11527

votes: 26

No, don't "need" Deng, especially for the $ amount. Our weakness is not at the SF spot.

namzug

09/14/2013 - 10:41 AM PST

Clipper All-Star

Posts: 1370

Location: So Cal

votes: 14

I know we don't need Deng, but if he's healthy i would gladly trade him for Dudley and Crawford. That would improve our defense and have a top 5 sf in my opinion.

Silasie

09/14/2013 - 11:00 AM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 2815

votes: 4

I am a big fan of Deng. I play ball with a guy who used to coach him in here in England.

He is not really a great fit for us in a way but it would be great to have his defense.

uncool

09/14/2013 - 05:55 PM PST

Clipper Starter

Posts: 963

votes: 5

If Deng got hurt, our team loses Dudley's floor spacing/solid D & Jamal's spark off the bench in one swoop if we made that trade. Too many eggs in one basket, I'd rather not gamble.

Markojaric

09/14/2013 - 09:22 PM PST

Clipper Starter

Posts: 282

Location: Buenos Aires

votes: 2

im not sold on Deng for that price. And crawford playing in a team coached by thibodeau doesnt make sense for them either, I guess.

We lose a lot of scoring punch from the bench, and Deng is far a worse shooter than dudley, which doesnthelp chris paul either. Dudley is a good defender on his own.

TheDude

09/14/2013 - 10:06 PM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 2905

votes: 31

I'd trade Dudley+Jamal for Deng in a heartbeat. This would be a complete steal for us. If we added a pick they might do it because they'd get Dudley for at least a year and have options with Jamal's contract. It's uneven talent-wise but most of our contracts are extremely favorable to the team, trade value of most of our guys is higher than their value on the court because of the short terms and lower costs of these deals.

Only Redick, DJ, and Hollins are being paid market value or less but even DJ is going to entice particular takers to over pay because he'll have a great game here and there and he's so athletic.

We should be able to flip some of our depth in value for another all star at some point. Maybe it's Deng, maybe it's somebody else.

CP3Heliflopter

09/14/2013 - 11:07 PM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 7252

votes: 12

^Please explain to me how Dudley + Jamal for a injury prone Deng is a complete steal for us? Deng is a very good albeit overrated defender. He is offensively inept while Dudley is a 3&D high bball iq type of guy. Dudley is the perfect fit with CP3 and BG. Then consider that we are giving up Crawford as well and the fact that Deng earns more than both combined.... Yea I would take Dudley by himself over Deng. Not because he is better but he is a better fit. Deng as an All Star for two consecutive seasons is frankly a complete joke. He has had a lot better seasons in the past where he didn't get All Star recognition. Deng getting those two All Star games is similar to how Mo Williams got All Star consideration just because he was on a 66 win team and there was no one else of note on that team aside from Lebron.

Agent0

09/15/2013 - 01:47 AM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 6773

votes: 59

Deng has not been very good offensively the past few seasons with his injuries. He's been a poor offensive player with them. He makes a ton of money. The increase in defensive production you get from Deng to Dudley isn't worth the money increase. Dudley is a much better shooter, not as talented an individual defender, but a smart defender in his own right, and a good one. He doesn't have as good individual offensive and on ball skills but is a better and more effective offensive player.

People forget that Deng hasn't been the 18 pts/36 and efficient guy since 07-08, 5 seasons ago!

So you would be paying $10 million more for the difference between Deng and Dudley's defense and 1 more pt/36 but taking more than one more FGA, so essentially an offensive downgrade no just individually but for the team due to lost spacing.

Note: Deng was better when Rose was also playing and he wasn't posing as a first option, though still shooting awful from three and not being so efficient as a scorer, but low turnovers.

TheDude

09/15/2013 - 06:52 PM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 2905

votes: 31

Dude I don't know what to say to somebody who thinks Jared Dudley is better than Luol Deng. I'm happy to get Dudley but you're comparing a role player to an all star. He has consistently been a 15/5 guy throughout his career and he's always been one of the elite defenders in the league. Guys that get at least 14points per game for 8 straight seasons are not "offensively inept". Dudley has had one season where he got more than 12points per game. His career average is 9ppg. Deng is inept and Dudley is awesome I guess.

I wouldn't consider him injury prone. He played 82 games 3 seasons ago. Missed 12 two seasons ago and 7 last year. That's while averaging over 38minutes per game! Of course you're miss some time when you play almost the whole game.

He led the league in minutes played this season. So he must be terrible. Coaches love to play terrible players the whole game.

He's one of the greatest defensive players in the league and he's basically the biggest/longest player at that position. When you get deep into the playoffs, if you want to beat Bron/Durant, there's very few players that can cover these types of guys without help. He's one of them. Beyond Iggy, there's very few other guys out there that can do that. You think Dudley is in that category? He's not.

I love Jamal. But he's not going to be here for long. He'll play this season and then we will either buy out the last year of his deal or trade him. He's 33, we just drafted a wing and signed another one long term. Jamal is redundant and too costly long term. There is no question at all that he will be gone by this time next year. I'd rather get something good for him than let him be bought out or traded laterally for a different bench piece.

TheDude

09/15/2013 - 06:53 PM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 2905

votes: 31

double post

TheDude

09/15/2013 - 07:26 PM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 2905

votes: 31

You guys with your per36 stats are hilarious. Put me in the game and get me the ball. I get lucky and make a 3 on the first possession and I'm averaging 112 points per game. So I would be approx. 3 times the player Lebron is and would be worth an 85mil per year contract.

You cannot accurately compare career bench players to career starters with per36 stats. It's a joke. There is a reason why starters are starters and bench players are bench players. Dudley still only played 27.5mpg last year.

Like I told your buddy right now, usually good players play more and bad players play less.

Dudley was on one of the worst teams in the league and Deng had an above average/fan favorite/exciting young player backing him up yet he still averaged the most minutes in the league.

I'm really happy to have Dudley on our team this year. It will be an improvement over Caron no doubt about it. But he's a career role player and there's no reason to believe he'll be anything other than that in a Clippers uniform. He does one thing better than Deng and that is 3point shooting. Every other aspect of the game and Deng is the superior player.

Even in regards to 3point shooting, it's not that big of a gap between these two players. If you take out last season when he didn't have a PG, Deng has averaged 37.5% from deep for the past 4 seasons. that's above average and only a couple points below Duds.

He has in general been one of the most consistent scorers in the league for the past 8 years, never less than 14points per game and averaging 15points per game. You know exactly what you'll get with him. 15/5 all day long.

He's always been an elite defender. dudley is a good defender but not close to Deng. Deng can guard a KD or Bron for 7 straight games. There's probably 4 or 5 other guys on the planet that can do that. Obviously Dudley couldn't do it for a possession let alone a series.

Losing Jamal is inevitable. We can't afford him beyond this season and the FO will part ways one way or the other. Either he'll be bought out or traded. I'd rather use him in a trade to get us an elite wing in his prime for the long term vs. letting him walk for nothing.

And by the way, Dudley will be expensive to retain two years from now anyway. We'll need to consolidate the talent already next season. I'd like to get a solid two-way player for the long term rather than waiting for guys to bail for a paycheck.

Of course I'm talking about next summer for this move. S&T 4/40mil for Duds and Jamal. I'm honestly amazed that there's even a conversation about this. If you can flip two role players for one of the best wings in the game, you do it in a heartbeat. Especially for the Clips, a team with the best PG and one of the best bigs. Deng is really the last piece of the puzzle. I'm sure we'll be in the conversation this year but I don't think we're quite there yet. We need a 3rd star and he's really the ideal for that role.

CP3Heliflopter

09/16/2013 - 12:40 AM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 7252

votes: 12

^The per 36 argument doesn't make any sense. 27 mpg isn't a that far away from 36 mpg and we have Barnes as our backup so we wouldn't want our starting SF to play that many minutes anyway....

Only 3 point shooting? He is better than Deng at mid range shooting by a large margin as well.... You act like being better at 3 point shooting is something insignificant.... The most efficient ways to score are the corner 3, dunks/layups and free throws. There is a reason why the best offensive teams typically have good 3 point shooters and the two teams in the Finals last season were great 3 point shooting teams.

15/5 on poor efficiency in nearly 40 mpg isn't something to write home about.... Its nice to be consistent but Deng is offensively inept. He is a ball dominant player who scores on below average efficiency in comparison to a great off the ball shooter in Dudley. Were not only talking about how good a player is but fit as well and Dudley is a way better fit with CP3 and BG. Btw look at how few attempts Deng has had when it comes to three point shooting. He has had two seasons where he shot over 3 attempts and many seasons where he had around 1 attempt per game or less. His career 3 pt % is 33% with 1.8 attempts. Lets not nitpick stats in order to make him look better. You can say last season was an anomaly in terms of percentages but you can also say he is falling more in line with his career averages. Regardless its pretty clear that Dudley is significantly better at shooting the 3 ball not only "a bit better".

As for losing Jamal. Fair point but we can trade Jamal for a good backup big. We don't really need wing players. Dudley/Barnes/Bullock as SFs and Redick/Green/Bullock is more than good enough.

namzug

09/16/2013 - 10:42 AM PST

Clipper All-Star

Posts: 1370

Location: So Cal

votes: 14

I'm not going to sit here and say that Dudley isn't a better role player than Deng, or that Deng isn't overpaid because he is. Dudley is also the far superior shooter, but let's not pretend that Deng isn't the superior player overall.

Deng is a better rebounder and defender. Rebounds equal more chances and which he does get more rebounds than Dudley. He averages a defensive rating 103 to Dudley's 110. His Offensive rating is much less than Dudley's but he wouldn't be the second option here as he is in Chicago. I think this would improve his efficiency numbers a lot. Wins shared regardless of offensive and especially defensively favor Deng.

On top of that Green and Bullock can split minutes as the back up SG.

The only reason I would be for this is because last year our bench was the defensive force, and it will not be this year (unless their is something about Mullens and the rest of the bench that I don't know about not including Barnes). With that said I think our starters will improve defensively as built now, but don't really like the idea of that much pressure on Blake and DJ (DJ should get that pressure and defense should be his main priority, but to put the pressure of Offense and Defense on Blake is too much in my opinion). Someone that can stop penetration and in some cases shut players down would be very beneficial. The other thing he's played in Thibs system, so he already should have a good understanding of the system.

The money involved in Deng does make cautious, considering he seems to want more of a long term contract too. If he were looking at a long term I wouldn't want to give him more than 9 mil.

namzug

09/16/2013 - 10:52 AM PST

Clipper All-Star

Posts: 1370

Location: So Cal

votes: 14

I do want to see what our team can do as is, and really don't want to see a trade. This one just seemed to be intriguing.

Agent0

09/16/2013 - 03:42 PM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 6773

votes: 59

I wish college taught us better use of statistics . This would be a good argument if we just took one game. Now let's say next game you go 0/1, the next game you go 0/0, the next game you are 0/0. In 1 MPG, now you are at 2 pts in 4 minutes, 18 pts/36 and you're shooting 1/2, still irrelevant numbers, but you get the picture that it isn't sustainable, so we wait for more data.

NO ONE uses per 36 numbers for small sample sizes, especially single games, EVER, only people that don't understand statistical use would do that. That's called stupidity, exactly like what you just shut down, it would be stupid to say "player A scored 3 pts in 30 seconds, so this is his scoring rate". This is why people that don't understand the use of some stats think they are bad because they don't or don't want to take the time to understand where and how we can and should use them.

Now if/when player A averages 10 MPG for 20 games, 200 total minutes you can start to project from there, but it's still not too accurate cause 200 minutes is like 5 full games, there's still a lot of room for one really great or one really awful performance to skew the numbers. Now give me 12 MPG for 82 games, and we have something. When player 3 now plays 26 MPG in a season, 2000+ minutes if he's still the same caliber player and in the same role, you'll see the exact same rate of production.

Per 36 numbers hold true after a certain amount of TOTAL minutes played. Yes, we can't use per 36 on someone who just played 1 minute. Or on a guy who played only 200 minutes on the season, but you get 1000 minutes of on court time, and per 36 minutes accurately predict the players rate of production when he's on the court. Rate of production doesn't mean "if you play 36 minutes you will always score this". It means that on average, every 36 minutes of floor time this player gets, this is how he produces.

Take 10 game samples of Deng for this past season:

1-10: 18.1 PPG / 40.1 mins --> 16.2 pts/36

11-20: 17.5 PPG / 42.1 mins --> 15.0 pts/36

21-30: 17.6 PPG / 38.6 mins --> 16.4 pts/36

31-40: 15.3 PPG / 37.6 mins --> 14.6 pts/36

41-50: 14.1 PPG / 37.3 mins --> 13.6 pts/36

51-60: 14.9 PPG / 37.8 mins --> 14.2 pts/36

61-70: 19.4 PPG / 40.6 mins --> 17.2 pts/36

71-75: 13.6 PPG / 32.2 mins --> 15.2 pts/36

On the season he averaged 15.3 pts/36 and you can see that every 10 games he was right around that range. If you go 20 games:

1-20: 17.8 PPG / 41.1 mins --> 15.6 pts/36

21-40: 16.5 PPG / 38.1 mins --> 15.5 pts/36

41-60: 14.5 PPG / 37.6 mins --> 13.9 pts/36

61-75: 17.5 PPG / 37.8 mins --> 16.7 pts/36

Get's even close, and again right in his range for most of those times, he had a little below production rate from games 41-60 and above fro, 61-75.

I hope this clears up some of the misconception about per minute numbers. The "well what if I play 1 minute and score 3 pts, I'm goat" argument is fun, but it's a terrible strawman. If every minute on the court you can repeat that action, well then it is no longer lucky, and if you keep doing that, then that IS your production. Sample size people!

Dudley:

10-11: 24.3 MPG --> 14.6 pts/36

11-12: 31.1 MPG --> 14.7 pts/36

12-13: 27.5 MPG --> 14.3 pts/36

See the consistency? See how it was the same when he was off the bench for 24 MPG, a starter on a >.500 team for 60/65 games, and again mainly a starter for a poor team for 50/79 games. That's because the sample size is sufficient, those were all 2000+ minute seasons.

In terms of Deng's shooting, you percentages don't add up, I think you might have added the three years and divided by 3, but that doesn't work because the volume in 09-10 wasn't the same.

Deng (10-11 and 11-12):

3.7 3PA, 35.4% 3PT (add 09-10 and it is 35.8%)

Dudley (09-10 to 12-13):

3.2 3PA, 41.3% 3PT

That's a pretty significant difference. Going the other way, it's the difference between 29.5% 3PT and Deng's 35.4% 3PT. 6% is HUGE!

namzuq, we can't really use defensive rating for individual players on different teams because defensive rating is team dependent. You can compare the players defensive rating in relation to his team and say "this guy is 3 pts/100 lower than his team while this guy is 2 pts/100 above his team, so that might imply he's a better defender". Being on a better defensive team gives you a lower defensive rating. You'd have to add some observation to that though, it isn't a definitive conclusion even that way. Defensive RAPM is coming closer to giving a correct picture.

In the end my point isn't that Dudley is better than Deng overall, and my post doesn't reflect that. My point is this. Dudley is a better offensive role player / 3-4th option and much better value making $10M less. Deng is better then Dudley, but Deng is not actually a very good offensive player, though he's good because he doesn't turn it over, Dudley is a GREAT offensive role player.

Deng has played at the level of a 3rd/4th option scorer for the past 5 seasons (15 pts/36), he's not a go to scorer and should not be used as one as he's ineffective in that role.

Dudley is also not a go to scorer and wouldn't even be attempted as one, but he plays the role of a 4th scorer much better and more effectively than Deng. On the Clippers, Deng is still the #4 scorer in a lineup with Blake/Paul/Redick, so his extra ability to create has no value to this team because it isn't improving the offense, and he has never shown to be as effective or efficient as Dudley in the 4th option role or as a shooter.

Defensively, I concede and said Deng is far superior, but $10 million more for the difference in their defense is better spent upgrading in other areas.

namzug

09/16/2013 - 04:19 PM PST

Clipper All-Star

Posts: 1370

Location: So Cal

votes: 14

@agent0 it wasn't directed specifically at you, just the overall argument. Using observations I believe that Deng is a superior player defensively. The ratings are just to back up what I believe, personally I think he is a better defender than what his rating specifies. You are correct that he does play on a defensive team, but specifically last year I thought he was the focal point offensively and did a decent job and didn't fall off dramatically on the defensive end. Its not like I caught all their games, but the ones I did it seemed like he was either option one or two (Chicago wasn't that great offensively, but to be the focal point of a playoff team should still get some attention). When Rose was there he did seem to fall off behind Rose obviously and sometimes Boozer, but Boozer was not a sure thing all the time. Rip seemed to be failed attempt to alleviate their need for scoring, I thought it was the last two years that Deng was used more on the offensive end.

My point is that out of those you mentioned Blake/Paul/Redick there seems to be enough of an offensive punch and no defensive punch, and it's not like Deng is completely inept on the offensive end. You do gain a defensive player that can play both ends very well, and someone to sick on those superstars that could cause trouble. I understand that it will be a team effort to produce wins against those teams that have superstars, but someone that can make them work for all their shots would be very beneficial in my opinion. I know JJ is better at defense than advertised or thought of, but don't think he is going to give any superstar any fits. He will do his job, stay in front of his man as much as possible, and not allow wide open shots; but nothing that would really stop and marvel at his defensive prowess.

I will agree that 10 mil is very large number, and if that was the option then why not have gone after Iggy this past offseason. I don't think the numbers even match up, so this trade doesn't even work without including Willie and or more options which would make this a no, no.

Agent0

09/16/2013 - 04:32 PM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 6773

votes: 59

Oh yea, my point isn't that I wouldn't love Deng, just that I wouldn't love Deng for $14.3M while losing the superior shooting of Dudley and losing Crawford without replacing his bench role. In a vacuum, yes, Deng is better than Dudley, but in a players making different amounts, having to pay luxury tax, needed roles on the team situation, Dudley just works better.

Markojaric

09/16/2013 - 07:38 PM PST

Clipper Starter

Posts: 282

Location: Buenos Aires

votes: 2

Although, playing Barnes at starting SF, Deng as a super Sixth Man and Green and Bullock playing the reserve SG spot isnt terrible, but I prefer the current lineup.

Playing Deng with Griffin AND Jordan together is gonna make us earn the moniker "Clogged Paint City"

Mavs could want a sixth man like Jamal. I think when season unfolds we ll see good benches and crappy benches and aim for those teams. Maybe Milwaukee could spare a big for us (Zaza?) Maybe there is no need for that, though.

(Also, i dont want to mention Jamal in every possible trade from now on)

CP3Best

10/08/2013 - 08:16 PM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 5074

votes: 13

I don't think Clips should or will give away running 6th man of the year!

Jerediscool

10/08/2013 - 09:52 PM PST

Clipper All-Star

Posts: 2027

votes: 26

Hahaha go back to the first page of this thread and read all the biased love of Al Thorton and Gordon. It was as if we had Lebron and Dwade back then haha. And back then we were talking about trading for Crawford. Now we can't wait to get rid of him. Oh how everything always comes back around

clipperboy24

10/08/2013 - 10:20 PM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 4977

votes: 38

Regardless of what stats you bring forward anyone with half a brain or more knows Deng is a far superior player. Also you say defensive rating is team dependent well wouldn't offensive rating be team dependent on some level? Dudley is a nice pickup but nowhere close to the player Deng is. There is a reason he barely got pt for the bobcats back in the day and Deng was a 1st round pick. Those same reasons haven't changed. Also, Dudley is a rather slow player for his size and far less agile on the court. Decent player but most likely will never be an all star unlike Deng.

Also per 36 really isn't a reasonable stat IMO. Why is it that scrubs can look better in per 36 than starters? If those scrubs played 36 mpg I can guarantee most wouldn't be at their or 36 stats which is why they don't play close to 36 mpg.

All that said, I do think Deng is overpaid but is a very good player, much better than Dudley and would love to have him over dudley

Andrew818

10/08/2013 - 10:37 PM PST

Clipper Starter

Posts: 812

votes: 12

We need a guy like Crawford in the playoffs who can create his own shot when the other teams defense puts a lot more pressure on CP3 and Blake.That is a reason I am a little reluctant about trading him.But he didn't really deliver in the playoffs last year against Memphis.Jamal wasn't terrible but he wasn't close to his best either.I like Crawford a lot but if a player doesn't fit then you move him.

Don't have the stats to back it up but I am pretty sure Crawford is a lot better in the ISO than he is off catch and shoot situations.Meanwhile Willie,Bullock,and especially Redick are great at coming off screens and making shots.If that is how our offense is going to run than as good as Crawford is,he might be expendable.We have to see how Crawford plays before we consider shipping him off.I think by December or January we should get a good idea.

I also liked that we got some stretch bigs but playing Jamison and Mullens together isn't a good move imo.Both are mediocre defenders and rebounders.We are going to give up a lot of rebounds playing them together.If it doesn't seem to work out with Crawford than I think trading him and Mullens for Glen Davis,Zaza Pachulia,Ekpe Udoh,or Spencer Hawes would be a decent move but each is also a bit of a risk.Gonna be interesting to see how our roster looks in February.

CP3Heliflopter

10/08/2013 - 10:46 PM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 7252

votes: 12

^You don't need more than two shot creators. That certainly isn't true and shot creation isn't particularly valuable if you don't score efficiently.

The Spurs seem to do just fine without a lot of shot creators. The difference is that the Spurs had a consistently great defense and great shooters. We had poor shooters and defense got exposed badly. In the playoffs last season we had the worst defense out of every team in the playoffs.

Clipswhit

10/08/2013 - 10:59 PM PST

Clipper All-Star

Posts: 1773

votes: 8

Man everyone goes from Crawford for 6th man to trade him in a half of exhibition ball... He may not fit, and may be moved, but let's wait and see all of the variables here:

Would the team function better with Crawford starting and Redick anchoring the bench?

Can willie maintain his level of play for more than a game

Would bullock and Reggie provide us with reasonable depth at the 2 if we decide to move Crawford?

What would happen if someone went down on the wing?

While I agree that we need another upgrade up front, I'm willing to see if Lou is that upgrade. People keep hypothetically asking what happens if Blake or DJ go down? If one of our big 3 go down we stay afloat until he comes back. If he's out for an extended period of time, we're screwed regardless of who his backup is.

namzug

11/13/2013 - 02:55 PM PST

Clipper All-Star

Posts: 1370

Location: So Cal

votes: 14

So I know we shouldn't trade just yet, but if our bench continues to look like a problem I've gone ahead and listed some guys I think we could get. These guys seem to be out of the rotations early on, and maybe we can get one while only sending back scraps. I also might have scrap in the list, anyone interest you guys.

Daniel Orton- I think has potential to be a defender, but only saw him play once. Isn't getting minutes and he can be an upgrade over Hollins

Ikpe Udoh- Same as above, haven't really seen him since he was with Golden State

Bismack Biyumbo- I think he's also like the two above

Trevor Booker- Don't really know too much about him other than he is undersized.

Chris Copeland- He's a tweener, like Earl Clark or Jamison.

Anthony Tolliver- same as above

Jonas Jerebko- He's like a slightly more athletic Mullens.

Nazr Mohammed- I don't think he ever get's minutes.

Reggie Evans- We all know what we would get here.

Elton Brand- He's not getting minutes over a lot of the young guys, but that might be short lived or injury related. He'd be the perfect fit.

Kyle O' Quin- I got nothing.

Jan Vesely- same as above

Perry Jones- again nothing

Meyers Leonard- I think can be a decent back up like a poor man's DJ, but I might be way off.

Kenneth Faried- Haha I wish, what if we give up a 1st

Mosgov- don't see it happening but what the hey

Kingkanyon

11/13/2013 - 04:30 PM PST

Clipper Starter

Posts: 281

Location: kingkanyon

votes: 2

LMAO, this is the Ultimate list of guy's who aren't available. Besides maybe Ikpe Udoh, or signing Daniel Orton who is a FA, nobody's giving up those individuals. (Anthony Tolliver........ "NO")

But If I had my pic on that list, It would be EB first, and Myers leanor 2nd, but Myers plays like a typical dumb big guy. Mosgov, I thought we were looking for defense.

I think if we were going to sign a guy, I'd rather them sign Darko, the dude has a good mid rage jumper, and to me, seeing him over the years, he is a top notch defender. But I think he retired early, so we can all dream A. But my ultimate dream is for Mullins to get his #ht together, I think if he comes along on D than we could truly have a special team.

jarca

11/13/2013 - 04:44 PM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 9541

votes: 43

Byron Mullen and Hollins for Keneth Faried. Make it happen Doc lol

namzug

11/14/2013 - 05:09 PM PST

Clipper All-Star

Posts: 1370

Location: So Cal

votes: 14

@KingKanyon- these guys haven't gotten their fair share of minutes other than Faried, I included him because of the trade rumors. None of the other guys are getting minutes and it's actually the better players I would think are more available since they would expect higher amount of minutes. Brand was probably expecting more minutes and Reggie went from starting to 10 minutes a game (which his contract is very friendly but saving a buck could go a long way on a team so far over the cap). I wasn't really high on Mullens, but don't mind the project if we had another solid big. I know some of the names aren't defensive minded, I just think they might be better at what we were expecting from Mullens or a better fit with Jamison.

Speaking of LMAO I think Doc would LHAO if he heard Darko's name brought up after the debacle of a season he had with Boston.

bullterrierclipsfan1349

11/15/2013 - 12:43 AM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 4526

votes: 30

We should try to trade for channing Frye. Would fit well with the clips. However idk if the clips have pieces phoenix would want.

JahvonTheClip

11/15/2013 - 06:16 AM PST

CTB MVP X1

Posts: 3807

votes: 9

Channing Frye is playing bad so far so they should be apprehensive about him. 22% from 3 yuck

tense2

11/15/2013 - 09:57 AM PST

CTB MVP X3

Posts: 11527

votes: 26

Love to buy low on Channing since he has a 3PT career shooting % of .386, but he also has a contract price of 6.4 mil (6.8 mil player option in 14/15) so putting a trade together if it doesn't involve guess who, might be tough.

Agent0

11/15/2013 - 06:34 PM PST

CTB MVP X2

Posts: 6773

votes: 59

Problem is Frye doesn't make that little, if he wasn't making as much as he does, then of course it is a no-brainer.

Frye is a really good fit because while he's not perfect at both, he can play PF and C, he rebounds well on defense (still averaging 6.1 defensive rebs/36 this season / 18.2 DRB%), and he can be paired effectively with both Blake and DJ. Also his defense isn't great, but it isn't bad either, he's okay defensively.

Of course the main thing is that the three seasons before this year he shot 39.7% 3PT on 4.9 3PA. That's not a joke, that's serious. Just think of Blake near the basket with Frye in the corner and CP/Frye pick and pop.

In terms of the trade, I think more than tough, more like impossible without Jamal, and even then, probably some sort of three way as Phoenix wouldn't want Jamal, not from a talent standpoint, but from a playing young guys standpoint.